i have been -- [shouting] i have been neglecting my tooth but i can't give her a better answer today but are not important this issue is if we don't look after our be operations very serious consequences will soon follow. >> today is a publication of the all party report which calls for leadership for the very tough issue to the prime minister look at the report, will he make sure that he produces -- [inaudible] >> in order. members on both sides are very discourteous to the good doctor. i can't imagine why. whenever i call the good doctor there are groans. >> i've always agree with alterman says but on this occasion he's right, and the house should heed what he says. we should be doing much more in our country to encourage

cycling. i think the report has many good points in a. i would commend with the mayor of london has done in london to promote cycling and help local authorities can follow his lead in making sure that we do more. >> can the prime minister till the house whether the deep shade of red that he turned when asked a question by the honorable member as to whether he has been consulted on the appointment of thompson was actually in place of answer yes? >> we have got an actual new head of both sport england and sport uk. that is what -- these are decisions for the secretary of state and they are right that she takes them. >> last but not least, stephen metcalfe. [shouting] >> does the prime minister agree that you do not sell the debt crisis by borrowing more? and for the party to have any credibility they need to

acknowledge, apologize to my constituents and just say sorry? [shouting] >> my honorable friend is optional be right on this side of the house we know we have to get borrowing it down, and, frankly, in the last week what we've seen is the right honorable gentleman in his true colors. two weeks to stand up for the shadow council on the deficit, two weeks to stand up to backbenchers on welfare, two weeks to stand up to the trade unions on just about anything. it is a week in which he said goodbye to david miliband and hello to george galloway. no wonder, no wonder tony blair said their fellow travelers are not listed he was ousted the right. [shouting] >> order. statements for home secretary. >> here on c-span2 we will leave the british house of commons now as they move on to other legislative business. you've been watching prime

minister's question time aired live wednesdays at 7 a.m. eastern while parliament is in session. you can see this week's question time again sunday night at nine eastern and pacific on c-span. and for more information go to c-span.org, click on c-span series for prime minister's questions complies with international news media and legislatures around the world. you can also watch recent video, clean programs did with other international issues. >> oh, my ticker to secretary janet napolitano testified yesterday about the relationship

between homeland security and immigration policy. she was also asked about the boston bombers and the saudi student originally questioned. >> several media outlets have reported that two individuals responsible for the tragic bombings were immigrants from chechnya. before the brothers came, before the brothers became the focus of the investigation, authorities questioned a saudi student who reportedly was on a terrorist watch list. i sent a letter to you this morning asking for answers to questions about the bombers and how they interacted with your agency. i trust that you would probably respond, given the impact that this could have on the immigration debate. with regard to the saudi student, was he on a watchlist? and if so, how did he obtain student visa? >> who is not on a watch list. what happened is this student, really when you, the wrong place

at the wrong time. he was never a subject if he was never even really a person of interest. because he was being interviewed, he was at that point put on a watchlist and then when it was quickly determined he had nothing to do with the bombing, the watchlisting status was removed. >> okay. in regard to the older brother of the two people, was your department aware of his travels to russia? and if you weren't, the reasons. >> the travel in 2012 that you're referring to? yes, the system pinged when he was leaving the united states. by the time he returned, all investigations, the matter has been closed. >> is it true that his identity document did not match his airline ticket? and if so, why did tsa missed

the discrepancy? >> there was a mismatch there. by the way, the bill will help with this because it requires that passports be electronically readable as opposed to having to manually input. it really does a good job of getting human error to the extent out of process. but even with the misspelling in our current system that are redundancies, and so the system did dean when he was leaving the united states. >> the museum is meant to help the visitor relive the first eight years of the 21st century. the museum explains the decision-making process that i went there as president. and we hope the museum inspires people to serve, want to serve their community or serve their country. we really didn't want to be a stool. we wanted to be a duty.

and so i don't know if there's a lesson there. i do know that lower and i decided to go in a different direction community, apart from the museum with a component from which programs would emerge. >> watch the dedication segment of the george w. bush presidential library and museum from southern methodist university in dallas live thursday morning at 11 a.m. eastern on c-span3, c-span radio and c-span.org. and tune in wednesday night at 10 eastern on c-span for a conversation with the former first couple. >> stakeholders in various industries and advocacy groups testified on capitol hill monday on the pros and cons of the senate gang of eight immigration bill. senators john mccain, chuck schumer, dick durbin, lindsey graham, robert mendez, margarita, jeff flake and michael bennet are the architects of the legislation.

>> good afternoon to the new panel, and thank you for being here. welcome to the immigration hearing of the senate judiciary committee. i'm going to introduce all of the panelists very briefly, but the first person than going to introduce is a dream and an immigrant rights leader currently serving as director of the bridge project in miami, florida. she's the cofounder of students for equal rights as will a note that senator durbin wish to say a few words will do for him for a few minutes. >> thanks there's a genetic i thank you. at 2:00 distant cousin session and either built on the fourth will have to be there. i explained that to gabby in advance but i wouldn't want her to think i was living in her time of testimony. gabby has been such an important part of this effort on passing the dream act.

she came to the united states from ecuador at the age of seven picture with the highest ranking junior rotc student in her high school. she served as president of florida's junior college student government, and then she got actively involved in the dream m act. i haven't at this for four years to gabby, i do know how many of them but it is been a few. it involves a number of students from florida who would be eligible for the dream act are literally walked from miami to washington. and along the way gathered students of like mind, some algebra, some who were not eligible to want to support the cause. and it is a cause that is grown in intensity because of your leadership, can become and to me others like you. so i want to thank you fo for bg here today and i will stick around as long as i can to try to come back for questions, but the dream act is where it is today because of the courage of young people like yourself. thank you. >> the rest of the panel is

janet, th president and ceo of e national council of tonight, the largest national hispanic surprise and advocacy organization and training. you do a wonderful job. i'm delighted you're here. doctor davidson, senior pastor at champion forest baptist church in houston, texas, where he served since 2006. executive director at the center for immigration studies who has worked there since 1995, a veteran in the field. laura lichter, esquire, currently serves as president of the american immigration lawyers association based in denver, colorado, and the honorable kris kobach, kansas city to estate from 2001-2003 was also counsel to u.s. attorney general john ashcroft at the justice department. welcome and were delighted to have you here. please proceed with your statements. >> thank you, chairman. also like to recognize chairman

leahy, ranking member grassley and the members of this committee for giving me the opportunity to testify today in support of s. 744, the border security economic opportunity and immigration modernization act of 2013. my name is gabby pacheco and i'm aand undocumented american. i was born in 1985. in 1983 at the age of eight i moved to the united states with my parents and three siblings. out of everyone who was here testifying today, i am the only one that comes to you as one of the 11 million undocumented people in this country. my family reflects the diversity and beauty of america. we are part of a strong working class, a mixed status family, neighbors, classmates, fellow parishioners, consumers and are part of the fabric of this nation. my father is an ordained southern baptist preacher who

currently works as a window washer. my mom a licensed nurse's aide, but with health conditions she hasn't been able to work for the last couple of years. their hope is to continue to support their family while at the same time contributing to the country's economic growth. my older sister is eagerly counting the days when she is able to apply for citizenship later this year. she is married to the united states is and has two united states citizens children. she will be able to vote in the next national election. my second oldest sister currently works for a construction company, and although a dream or she does not qualify for the department of homeland security new initiative, doctor. because she is over the age of 30. however, the dream act provisions under s. 744 will provide her a permanent path forward. my younger brother has a car

washing visited last month at the age of 27 and because of doctor. it was able to get a driver's license and by his first car. however, it is not a permanent solution. last i am the wife of the venezuelan of cuban descent who has lived in the united states for 26 years. last year after 18 years of waiting, he was able to obtain his legal permanent residents. my husband process shows how immigration system is broken, outdated, and has been in need of modernization. my family is not alone. in 2009 my friend, codirector of get equal, asked me to join him on a journey and campaign to seek immigration reform. in my heart i knew that in order to put an end to the separation of families, heal the hurt and the pain of our communities we needed to peacefully demonstrate and courageously bring to light our lack of immigration status. on january 1, 2010, philippe a

and carlos and i begin the trail of dreams, a 1500-mile walk from miami to washington, d.c. through this walker wanted to show our love for this country which we consider our home. we risked our lives can put everything on the line. we walked in the col cold and fa pain in our bodies and the blisters and calluses forming on our feet. we walked in faith, knowing that before us, and before come in our country people have put their lives at risk to fight for freedom, for legal reforms, and the american values that this country was founded on and aspires to. we did not allow anything to stop us from including the element of american society. we witnessed firsthand how misinformation and fear mongering and his people about immigrants. the phrasing and images that some portrayed people like me, undocumented americans, has created a false perception of who we are.

it is also during the trail we saw firsthand how fear translates into hate. i vividly remember -- in a kkk demonstration had covered the streets of a small town in georgia. in fact, invent eerily similar happened if this had in atlanta, georgia. america's history, however, shows that we've been here before and we have overcome. since the walk i've carried the stories and dreams of thousands of people we met along the way. people working the fields, people working in chick'n fried, day labor centers, homes of domestic workers, newspapers a journalist, small businesses as owners, and doctors and nurses but these people are mothers, fathers, children and neighbors. their dreams are held in the hands of this committee and the rest of congress. their dreams now live in senate and bipartisan bill s. 744.

legalizing people like me, 11 million of us, will make the united states stronger and will bring about significant economic gains in terms of growth, earnings, tax revenues and jobs. it is time to set fear aside and deal with an issue that is affecting the entire nation. and doing nothing is no longer acceptable. americans deserve a modernize immigration system. individuals our citizens in every way except on paper asked for a roadmap to citizenship. and in the words of my good friend, who testified in front of this very committee, what do you want to do with me? what do you want to do with us? with dignity and face i surrender my talents, my passion, my life. i ask you to give me my family and the 11 million of us an opportunity to fully integrate and achieve our american dreams. thank you. >> thank you, ms. pacheco.

and welcome. ms. murguia, to you. welcome, please proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to chairman leahy and ranking member grassley, and all the members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before you all today. i want to thank the bipartisan group of senators who worked to find common ground and a commonsense solution on this very difficult issue. senate bill 744 is a significant milestone and presents a historic opportunity to move forward on immigration reform. first, there is a clear path to legalization and eventual citizenship at the core of this bill. the sponsors of senate bill 744 recognize that the u.s. have been successful as a nation of immigrants because we allow and encourage those who come to our shores to fully participate in american life. this legislation seeks to ensure that the best interest of our country continued to be served.

a key step in achieving this is requiring the 119 undocumented immigrants who are already here and who want to earn legal status to come forward. pass background checks, learn english, and eventually apply for citizenship. but i do want to express our concern to the committee that the process may be too long and too costly. for many who have been working and raising families in the u.s. second, unlike previous immigration reform, this bill would create a 21st century legal immigration system intended to be responsive to u.s. labor needs in a regulated orderly fashion, while breaking precedent by providing labor rights and protection. this is the best way to prevent the nation from having yet another debate in the future about legalizing another group of workers. it is imperative that our legal immigration system keep pace with our economy and our

changing society. and while the legislation thoughtfully addresses worker base, legal immigration, it does send mixed messages on family immigration. make no mistake, our country has had a historic commitment to family unity, because it is good for society and for our economy. we are glad that the bipartisan legislation seeks to reduce the unnecessarily long backlog for certain family visas. but eliminating visas for groups such as siblings and adult children fails to take into account that families today come in all shapes and sizes, and includes siblings pooling their resources together to buy a home or to start a business. i told her children taking care of their elderly parents, and also by national same-sex families. finally, americans hold immigrant integration in high regard and want to see immigrants pledge allegiance to our country. so we are very pleased to see that the bipartisan legislation

also includes many measures and the resources necessary to achieve the successful integration of immigrants into american society. immigrants want to learn english and make greater contributions to the nation. i know it because my organization and the hundreds of affiliates helps immigrants on this journey every day. in conclusion, i would like to acknowledge that compromises will have to be made by all parties. significant concessions have already been made in this legislation. many that cut deeply into the interests of immigrants and hispanics. if each of us was looking at on individual pieces of this bill from her own parochial perspective, there is much we would be forced to oppose. but just as we are asking others to set aside some of their priorities, to advance our nation's interest in we recognize that all of us have to accept some compromise to advance our common goal of

producing a bill that reflects a strong effective and sustainable immigration policy for the 21st century. a bright line will soon emerge between those who seek to preserve the status quo which serves no one except those who profit from a broken immigration system, and those who are working in good faith to reach governments and deliver a solution that this country desperately needs. put in stark terms, those who oppose progress are not just advocates for doing nothing. in essence their advocates for worse than nothing. opponents of progress would ignore the growing gap between the needs of the 21st century society and a legal immigration system that has remained unchanged for nearly three decades. they would be opposing a level playing field for american workers and the accelerated integration of immigrants. in short, many offer the same people -- feeble failed policy that don't produce results.

this bright line will be seared into the minds of latino voters. those voters who created the game changing moment for this debate in november and an additional 14.4 million u.s. born and raised perspective has been for several joined electric between out in 2020. our committee will be engaged and watching closely to ensure that the legalization process israel, enforcement is accountable, and families and workers are protected. thank you. >> thank you, ms. murguia to thank you also for the important role that the national council of la raza has played in this discussion and will continue to play. before we get to pastor flemming, ranking member grassley has a statement from the national association of former border patrol officers that will without objection be placed into the record. and that we will hear from pastor flemming. please proceed. >> thank you. and good afternoon, senators, and thank you so much for the privilege and the opportunity persisting in this process. as you work towards a bipartisan

social door nation's current immigration crisis as a pastor i got involved in this debate seems as a result of my everyday minutes responsibility. my personal encounters with hurting people just compel me to work towards improving a system that just isn't working. it's networkinnetworkin not working for young father with children back home, for a widowed mother, two teenagers for a feminist and everything to come legally but is caught in a system that is painfully slow and inefficient, and often simply unfair. i've spoken to law enforcement officials can immigration attorneys, government officials at every level. everyone agrees as to the magnitude of this problem, but when it comes to solutions the ones we've heard, the one poll we've heard what sounds like a call for open borders, amnesty with little regard for the rule of law or our national security. from the other pole we've heard a call for closed borders and deportation. which seems to have too little regard for human dignity and potential victims at the expense of our national identity.

we are a nation of immigrants. with such strong and opposing forces we heard plenty of rhetoric and have seen no workable solutions until perhaps now. in the midst of this confusion i as a pastor, wonder what god has to say. i read enrollment 13, let every person be subject to the governing authorities for there is no authority except from god. and those that exist have been instituted by god. therefore, whoever resists the authorities resists what god has appointed to those who resist will incur judgment. god is a god of order and our nation must be a nation of law and our laws must be just. but also read in leviticus 19, when a stranger sojourns with you and your land you shall do him no wrong. you shall treat a stranger sojourns with you as a native him and you and you shall love him as yourself. for you were strangers in the land of egypt. god expects us to treat all people with compassion, each person having been created in his image.

so which is a, senators? the law and justice, armor shouldn't -- mercy and compassion? and the answer is yes. there is balance in the tension between the two. we're out the two. we ought to be guided and in all that we do by a relentless commitments to protect the value and dignity of human life. and to alleviate human suffering whenever and wherever we can. senators, there is more at the heart of this debate and millions of undocumented immigrants. there are millions of real people with names and faces. i can assure you that each one matters to god and each one should matter to us. so we need a legal system and public policy that are certainly just, but that are also humane. i recognize i'm not in the majority perhaps, and maybe not everyone shares my conviction but i want you to know that our great many americans who do. i'm a local church pastor, but i had the privilege to stand with thousands of pastors from across the country who represent a

growing tide of support for a bipartisan effort and a comprehensive approach to immigration reform. in my city, the houston area pastors council wrote a declaration on immigration reform and more than 1000 pastors representing the great diversity of houston and the texas side of the southern baptist convention of which on the part with 45,000 churches and more than 16 million members come passed a resolution in 2011 calling for just and humane public policy with regard to immigration. most recent a national coalition of christian denominations and organizations has been foreign. it's not as the evangelical immigration table with thousands of christian leaders representing millions of members that's called for bipartisan comprehensive reform that respects the god-given dignity of every person, that protects the unity of the immediate family, it respects the rule of law, guarantees secured national borders, ensures fairness to taxpayers, and establishes a

path toward legal status and/or citizenship for those who qualified and who wish to become permanent residents. that's why i am grateful to see the introduction of this legislation your wildest build may not be perfect but it is to be an excellent starting point for a bipartisan discussion that moves the debate forward toward real solutions that work for real people. and a passionate debate with opposing views, some of us are called to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. in the and i will stand before the lord and give an account and it will be clear whether or not i cared about what god cares about, and when i did what i was supposed to do. not because it was popular with men, but because it was right with god. so i am calling on you, our representatives and our leaders, who no doubt share my sense of calling and responsibility, let's not waste this opportunity to do the right thing, under god, and for the sake of people created in his image. we want you to know that we're supporting you, we are praying for you, and we are with you as you work through this i partisan

and comprehensive reform. thank you. >> thank you, pastor. next is mr. krikorian, the executor of the center for immigration studies. please proceed. >> [inaudible] >> thank you. i will be talking about the legalization parts of the deal but since senator schumer had taken my name in vain as a were at the beginning of the hearing, i wanted to respond very briefly to a comment he had made. the boston bombing is not an excuse for delay of considering this immigration bill. but it is an illustration of certain problems that exist with our immigration system. and just to touch on a few them before and move onto the main body of my comments, why were the brothers jeff and faces to begin with? this is a question no one has answered why were they given asylum since it passports from kazakhstan close a special by with a given asylum, the parents have moved back to russia, a country supposedly they were

fleeing and wanted to find them from? what does it say about the automated background check that this bill would subject the 11 million illegal immigrants to that in person interviews by fbi agents of tamerlan resulted in no action. and what does it say about our broken patriotic system that legal relatively privileged immigrant young people became so alienated that they engage in this kind of mass murder against americans? let me move to the legalization part of this bill, s. 744. there may actually be circumstances under which amnesty and certain illegal aliens can make sense. the question is, would you do it before or after the problems that created the large illegal

population? unfortunately passed 744 -- s. 744 points the population before the completion of the necessary tools to avoid the creation of a new a legal alien population in the future. what's more, the legalization provisions of the bill make widespread fraud very likely it is, in fact, goes into effect. much has been made of the trigger that would permit the registered professional immigrants to receive permanent residents. and those triggers are clearly a step in the right direction, improvements in exit tracking, employment authorization, border security. the problem is with regard to legalization those triggers are essentially irrelevant. because the only trigger that matters to the legalization is the presentation of to border security plans by homeland security. and, frankly, given the number of similar plans that have passed before this body and

elsewhere, it's not much of a hurdle. unfortunately, it's the only hurdle that matters because receipts of his rbi status is the amnesty. that is to say, it transforms the illegal immigrants into a person who is lawfully admitted into the united states. the rest of it as an upgrade, not the amnesty itself. essentially the other triggers would trigger an upgrade from green card life, if you will, which is to say work work authorization, so chez reavie accounts, driver's license, travel papers, et cetera, green card light to green card premium which is the regular green card. and unfortunate as far as the incense, the political and bureaucratic incentives to get those benchmarks in force, that upgrade doesn't really create much of an incentive to get things done. once illegal immigrants are out of the shadows and no longer undocumented, the urgency on the

part of amnesty, to push the completion of those security measures essentially evaporates. what's more, many of those who received the rpi amnesty are likely to do so frequently. in meeting the requirements in section 2101 in the bill, it harkens back to the immigration reform and control act which the new your times rightly called one of the most extensive immigration frauds ever perpetrated against the united states government. just to touch on a few other things that would result in such fraud, irca created a crush of applications according to the department of justice inspector general. that was only 3 million people. what kind of crush what we see with three or four times that many applicants? the bill does not require interviews of amnesty applicants, and effect we've seen with the transfer embassy going on very few people are injured. 99.5% of applicants have been

approved so far. the bill permits affidavits by non-relatives regarding work or education. fraudulent affidavits work string the widespread in irca and created much of the fraud that we dealt with and that program. the current bill includes the confidentiality clause essentially a sanctuary provision prohibiting information to be used against the applicants. likewise, it does not require the deportation of any failed applicants. essentially create that heads i win tails you lose with the applicant instantly applied and now he can never be deported. and just to end, the consequences of this kind of fraud is very safe. we don't have to speculate. we saw from last time an egyptian illegal immigrants driving a cab in new york fraudulently received amnesty as a farm worker, and that legal status permitted him to travel to afghanistan, it is terrorist training, and help lead the

first world trade center attack. so i would encourage this panel to look hard at these legalization provisions and see if there is any way to salvage them and to avoid the kind of problems that we're almost certain to get. >> i don't want to take the time of the other, next witnesses. ms. lichter, producers as president of american immigration lawyers association. please go ahead spent think of the opportunity to address you today on the importance and historic moment. i will not use of my time to argue with mr. krikorian about his conclusions on these things that i can tell you that the mess we have today in our immigration laws, frankly, is

the mess that we designed. we've been living with a failed experiment now for almost 20 years. and i would suggest that if your head hurts from in your head against a wall, the solution is not to bang your head harder. the architecture of this bill shows great creativity, great courage. and i would argue that the candidate has shown great perseverance in reaching a very good bipartisan architecture. our concerns at this point, however, are that we not lose sight of some very core values that aid in our communities. families really are the cornerstone of our commuters. and it is a tragic irony that our current system places roadblocks in face of the people that have the most significant and decent ty stewart community's. family applications are plagued by long delays. i just pulled up the visa

bulletin desmond tutu of those delays were. the outcome of a u.s. citizen would wait over seven years to even begin the process, if it individuals from mexico we're talking over two decades. if we start talking about categories which are now apparently under siege of the families for marriage children and siblings of your citizens, those backlogs go back decades as well. it should be clear that we should not recognize a false dichotomy between business immigration and family-based immigration. they interrelate. many of our most important innovators and often nor is actually came to the family system, not merely the business system. they may dissuade highly skilled immigrants who have families from choosing to emigrate to deny states and especially in the case of individuals who are members of the lgbt community. it may force us to live our own

citizens who emigrate to other countries in order to keep their families impact -- and tactics addressing i can do is give you examples to tell you in my experience how this actually impacts people. we see families torn apart. we see people without option. we see until the children of people could be sponsored who are left out, those brothers and sisters, folks who might have no ability to immigrate on their own even to the opposed marriage basis but we conceive the frailty of lgbt couples. for example, an individual who is married in the united states but does not have another way to stay in the country, but that individual is at a roadblock and cannot immigrate under the current system or even under the proposal. we do want to thank the gang of eight and especially senator leahy for your leadership in the asylum arena.

streamline this process, providing more due process come increases efficiencies and getting rid of the arbitrator ae year filing deadline for asylum cases will increase the fairness of the process which is at the key of our vision in the world, as the upholders of freedom and fairness. immigration court has been described as something on the corner of byzantine and absurd. it is death penalty rules gashing circum- despina consequences with traffic court rules. we see backlogs that remain well over 300,000 cases, despite significant efforts by ice to prioritize the cases that are in preceding. we are encouraged by the effort to include more council, poor people going through proceedings. especially individuals who

obtain an expansion of the program, provided a win-win, win-win impact for the court, for the dhs, for the justice system and for the immigrants themselves. we need to ensure that we do not resort to draconian bright line limits. we simply -- december to work. they don't curb the behavior and to do not accommodate the needs for humanitarian consideration of cases on a case-by-case basis. immigration detention also needs a more significant i towards it. right now we've seen an incredible increase in spending on detention and increase in the number of beds, and i would like to see that we have more alternatives to detention as we go forward under the new bill.

i would like to make one brief comment as to the the concern for fraud going forward under the legalization program. what we have seen under deferred action actually is a very important effort by the government, and kudos to actually presenting incredible useful information on its website and administering the program in an intelligent way eric so the public cannot be victimized. there has been an incredible partnership by the immigration bar, by community based organizations and others to make sure good solid information gets out. good solid information and representation are going to be the keys to making sure that a program doesn't suffer from fraud or any other abuses. thank you. >> thank you very much, ms. lichter. our next witness, trenton, the kansas secretary of state -- mr. kobach, as counsel to u.s. attorney general john ashcroft.

please go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this bill has been portrayed as a balance between an amnesty for legalization and enforcement of my testament i want to express it is not a balanced bill. in my written test and offer nine reasons why this bill is problematic and not at all ballots do i want to stress the most important 60. three problems with the amnesty provisions as regards with enforcement provisions. the first one with amnesty provision is that the background checks in this bill are insufficient to prevent a terrorist from getting the amnesty is the biggest problem is this, the bill has no requirements that you provide a government issued a document that says you are who you say you are. so what that does is allow the terrorists to create a new fictitious identity, infant an unusual man, rumpelstiltskin for its and. he gets a card under the government, verifying him get incredibly for the new identity also gets legal status which allows them to travel abroad under the new identity.

the tamerlan tsarnaev case demonstrates to travel abroad for terrorist training how dangerous it can be for america. initiative without even if a terrorist attempt to use his real name taking the amnesty, the background check in most cases is unlikely to stopping. against the tamerlan tsarnaev example illustrates the point. as was mentioned most of these events are not going to personal interviews. tsarnaev have at least two background checks and personal interview with the fbi if you still were unable to conclude that he might have terrorist intentions and should be barred from the country. that was far more -- under the last amnesty in 1986 with multiple tears are amnestied out of 2.7 million amnesty's granted. this is much larger. it is a mathematical likelihood that it will happen again on a greater scale. second problem, people have already been deported are legalized under this and this. i'm not aware in amnesty in our

countries history when we reach back and read people who have already removed from the united states and brought them back in to gain the amnesty. and perhaps even worse, absconders are made eligible. for those who don't have the term abscounded someone who has been removed by an immigration court, he becomes a fugitive and remains in the united states anticipates the court order. this amnesty allows the absconders. what kind of instant without a going forward with our immigration courts will be sending a meaningless message. if you hang out you can remain a fugitive and to the next amnesty, you will be able to stay in the trendy. third problem is that legalizes dangerous aliens who received deferred action under daca. the daca directive was passed or an active i cannot even enacted, proclaimed by the second of homeland security in june 2012. it's now in effect, large numbers of people have gotten it. it violates federal law. certain aliens must be placed in a removal precedent. that's what this congress in

1996. it says no, you don't have to put them in removal proceedings. there was a hearing in april in dallas in federal district court. we learned at that hearing that under the daca directive multiple dangerous aliens who have been arrested but not yet convicted of these crimes have been released back onto the street. one for assault on a federal officer, sexual assault on the miner, trafficking in cocaine. those dangerous aliens will be eligible for the amnesty under this bill. three quick problems by the enforcement provisions are first the 90% threshold is meaningless. this bill promises an effectiveness rate of 90% but if 90% of the individuals who attempt to come into the country that they will be stopped or turned back. but there's no way of knowing that a nominee. we've never had the ability to connect with the number of people who evade border security enforcement. would probably never will. the second problem with this point is it doesn't measure 90% over the whole border. it only does so at supposedly a high risk area. as we know over the past few

decades every time the border patrol do something different here, it means the smugglers move the network to a different part of the board. .. discourage the employment on unauthorized aliens in the workplace will be preeveryoned. it's the only arizona saw a drop

of 36% in the illegal population compared to nationwide. they will be -- there could be a vacuum. while the new electronic verification system is created states would be permitted from doing anything. the final flaw, the bill scraps the e verify system. over 400 states use it, four statesman date. other require it for businesses receiving government contracts. it scraps that proven system and replaces it with something else. some other electronic verification system. it gets over 98% approval rating among employers who use it. they have to wonder why they are doing it. the on explanation is dislai. because of the prolonged phasing period and e verify probably don't have to be in place from five years. you're talking about a nine year

period at the minimum before this thing -- the new e verify likely to be in effect. in short it doesn't seem to be a good faith effort to bring enforcement to the work place. it would make e verify mandatory now. give large employers one year and other employers two or three years. >> sorry you feel the -- republican senator did work in good faith. i know, all eight of them well. they met with me. i think they worked very hard to work in good faith. mrs. pacheco it immediate me think of the '50s and '60s.

i remember them. you ib spired an entire generation taught them to come out of the shadows. do you it even though you risk being taken out of the only country you have ever known as home. what ib spires you to do that? what inspires you to step forward that way. >> thank you, senator leahy. it's simply put in one word. love. the love i have for my country, the family, the community i grew up in and the love i have for myself. i have a dream. i have three degrees. a bachelor in special education, i want to be able to open up the music therapy center to work with people with down syndrome, autism, and mental disabilities. that's what drives me. i think what a drives a lot of undocumented young people in the country who are seeblging an opportunity for themselves and family and that 1,500 mile walk,

all we did is talk to everyday people and after two seconds of telling our stories and sharing with them what was happening with our immigration system, we were able to change a lot of hearts and minds. >> thank you. and miss marguia, i'm used to calling you by your first name when we see each other, but you're the president of the civil rights organization in the united, i think that carries a lot of weight in america. as you know, i've supported immigration reform for years and years even though it's not -- [inaudible] it's a major moral issue for this country. i worry about a proposal that contains false promises.

apt straightforward and chiefble. is the legalization proposal in this bill drafted by the eight senators you consider straightforward and achievable? >> i do believe that there was a good faith effort to modernization our legalization program. i think that's an really important step. when we failed to do in 1986, it was a bill to acknowledge, it was to on the one hand we didn't create the flexibility to look how we might be able to make adjustments in to -- term of our economy and the need of our country and the work force. the program seems to build it in. we want to make sure it's something that can be done. on the one hand, ting reduces the backlog for many who have been waiting for a long time for family visas and for us, i think

that's an important step. on the other hand, we have some concerns about the elimination of the program for adult children. i think when you look at the bill as a whole, and all the parts that it has, there's a lot to like and dislike. overall, i think right now it presents a framework that we can build upon as we move forward. i'm very encouraged by what i see. >> thank you. currently in texas, i believe in florida you spoke about the moral imperative to reunite family and how millions of people refer to the moral aspect of it and earlier mentioned the grandson of immigrants, wife or daughter of immigrants.

my greatson -- i remember my grandparents speaking of morality. people coming to the country and insists we work hard and be good citizens. what brought you to speak out publicly in this matter? you have a lot of issues that you might speak out on. what brought you to speak out on this one. >> thank you, senator leahy. as i mentioned, it's the human aspect for me and the strong sense of god's movement in working in this as it relates to humanitarian side. i'm not a politician or an attorney. i'm not deemed worthy to speak n my calling is to remind u there's no solution at either poll or extreme. we have to come together and keep the humidity in the front

of our minds. i'm excited to say there's been a rising middle voice in the debate. i'm excited to see that. we've made lot of progress. i'm grateful we are talking about it today. i feel something good will happen. >> my final question, do you think it will bring people out of the shadows and registers? >> absolutely. we see this on a daily basis. people want to know how do they pay their taxes, how do they join the military? how do they start a business. they want to be fully functioning member of the community. >> thank you. senator grassley. >> my understanding of the bill, so far, is that undocumented immigrants will get every opportunity to apply for legalization and will have more opportunities if the bill were to pass to appeal the decisions that the homeland security officials make. would you discuss that part of

the bill, please? >> the bill permits those in deportation proceedings to apply for the amnesty. people who have already been deported, at least those deported over the last year and a half certain ones to apply for the amnesty. if they are turned down initially because of some inadequate documents, they're allowed second bite at the apple. so in this, you know, i don't mean to be flip about it, but this section could have been sub headed knowingly left mind. the goal seems to be to get as many -- get amnesty for as many people as physically possibly. >> okay, mr. kobach, i'm going quote a section of the bill and tell us with a you think it

means. page 330 in the bill, quote, secretary exercised discretion to wave a ground of inadmirable if the second secondary determines it's against the public interest or result in hardship to aliens, united states citizens or permanent resident, parent, spouse, or child, end quote. >> thank you, senator grassley. that provision on page 330 of the bill, i think is a huge loophole. i don't think the dhs secretary should have the immense discretion. it's a massive increase we see over discretion. it expands current laws which allows waivers in cases of extreme hardship. the change of language can have huge consequences. we're just down to hardship. it expands the hardship to the alien's parent as well. that isn't part of current law.

two pages before that, on page 328, the same unprecedented discretion is given to immigration judges and immigration corporate proceedings and have the authority to terminate the proceedings on the low threshold hardship. it can be apply to people that are deported and inned a i michelle. a person removed and convicted of some sort of domestic violence or spousal abuse could come back in and try to claim eligibility under the waiver. this is a loophole that might seem small enough. it's very big, actually. >> again, do people that apply for legalization rpi status and get denied having an opportunity to appeal the decision? and if so, what is that appeal process? what impact will it have on the federal court system.

>> the answer is yes, as mentioned. they have a right to appeal. we already see the immigration courts overflowing with cases. this is a constant complaint of the immigration court. it goes back to the time when i was at the justice department over ten years ago. we were trying to deal with the issue then. now you're sending all the people who are denied the am nest toy the i -- amnesty to the immigration system. they'll overload it further. i think you'll find there's a tendency with the discretion for judges any out to clear the docket. i think the excuse will exercise discretion if anyone related to the alien within the defines of that family unit as in the bill, can say they're suffering hardship. i think there's a combination of overloading the system and the wide discretion is going problematic. >> again, some may say the bill is -- immigration attorney and increase more loophole than

closes. do you know any specific provision that will only create hoop local down the road. >> there are a number. the employment -- employees. intermet end employees is referring to day labor. a large percentage of illegal aliens perform now. one could argue because of the discretion it may be applied to seasonal labor. that could be a huge loophole. for employers who make a god faith attempt to comply with the verifying of employees. but that good faith attempt seems ill placed. e verify is easy to comply with. it's not like they have problem and run name through the system. one wonders what could be a good faith failure. i try to look for the dhs website, i couldn't find it. is it good enough to be good

faith. there was clear and convincing evidence standard for employers who violate the starnld, it get it is high. i think employers are dwifn lots of leaway. these are a few of the loopholes. >> my time is up. let me make a closing comment, and the waver came up several times in my questioning here. i think, you know, we can't blame the president if he has a certain authority and uses it. so i don't want to use the word use. i think we can say that the president has taken more advantage of opportunities that have been given to him under law. when we consider the 1,693 delegation of authority to the president under the health care reform bill,ic that we ought to be very careful in this legislation as important as it is we have immigration reform. not to overdelegate authority and wavers and things like

that. thank you. >> yeah. i turn to senator klobuchar. we approach -- [inaudible] i'm going pause for a couple of minutes in the senate and reside the opening of the senate. it was decided that ten minutes to 2:00 they set it by urging the committees to hold a moment of silence. i will announce it. go ahead. >> thank you. with the last panel i focused on the economics of this bill and how important it was to our country's economy to move forward on reform. and here i want to get out an issue i think is equally important. i can start with you,

mrs. marguia about the part of the bill. i'm a former prosecutor, and i thought firsthand dozen of case were immigrant women would be victims and the perpetrator would be the domestic violence mostly rape, mostly young women, would hold over them they would be deported if they reported it to the police or if they allowed a prosecutor to go forward with the case. sometimes they report it they would have to because law enforcement knew about the case. then they would try to get them to back down and change their story and other things like that based on legal threats. we tried really hard in the against women act. we kept it and extended it to stalking victims, which was important. but we didn't expand the number of visa. the gang of 8 realizing it expanded them. can you talk about why it's so important for law enforcement? if you want to add anything. >> thank you, senator

klobuchar. thank you for your leadership on the act. i know, it was a huge victory for many of us and wanted to support that. but you're right, we have seen incidents that are higher than normal in many of these communities, the stresses on the family are enormous, and yet we don't have the assurance that the protection would be built in. with the bill we have seen a major effort to allow for more of those visa and allow for folks to come forward when they feel are they are at risk and not violate their status. it's a huge step forward for us. we're appreciative of the gang of 8 and their thoughtfulness in that regard. >> thank you. do you want to add anything? >> thank you for your leadership on this. it's a critically important piece, frankly, of law enforcement. it means that immigrant victims of crime can step forward and help prosecute their abusers whether it is something adieu

said a rape or domestic violence or even more heinous. the one thing i think we need to see a little more attention to is the removal of the need to have a law enforcement certification. what we find is that the victim him or herself ends up being the victim of the political tenor of the particular area in which they were victimized. and that should not have any place in this. if a victim is courageous enough and brave enough to come forward and testify in the prosecution, then that should stand on itself own. >> that's something you would like to see added. >> yes. >> mrs. lichter, the last -- on those types of technology these are the green cards. the u.s. is also facing a daunting shortage of doctors. one of the thing i worked very hard on with the bill and want to improve is the funding for home grown science technology,

engineer, matt degrees and getting more citizenship and getting high schools and big money in to this based on the fees that are being paid to the visa which should temporarily bridge us the gap. one of the areas i have seen in the rural part of our state is the need for doctors. many of them trained in the u.s. but happen to be from other countries to be able to work in rural and inner city areas. underserved areas. in the last decade my state alone has recruited over 200 doctors through the program called the conrad state 30 program. reintroduced the bill, and this is also included along with many other good things in this gang of 8 proposal. can you talk about how important it is when you have a rural area and you don't -- we had one hospital that almost it wasn't going to be able to deliver babies but because they didn't have a doctor that could perform a c section. especially in rural areas it's

important. >> thank you for your leadership on the area. this is another area of critical importance. we have a high number of foreign medical graduates who are foreign born. they are willing and eager to take these jobs out in rural areas and in some underserved urban areas as well. anything we can do through the immigration laws to assist them with the process really is going to now rich the benefit of our community. >> you mentioned going after fraud and abuse in your testimony in government programs, how important it is in the immigration context. that dhs, the department of labor, and the justice department should use their auditing and authorities to combat the misuse of the programs and protect foreign workers from abuse which in turn protects mesh workers. what cousin the -- what does the bill to prevent potential misuse of the visa program? >> well, my understanding there

are numerous opportunities and numerous lmentd -- element of the new bill that would allow us to combat abuse and numerous mechanism to frankly investigate that abuse. i think it's the point in time under the law we currently have that is where i think things are a bit anemia. we need to have more process. i would caution that process needs to be fair, it needs to be balanced, and it needs to make sure that all side are heard. >> very good. i appreciate that. i think people like to hear the part of the bill as well as the important pathway to citizenship and things we're doing that make it more possible to enforce against fraud and other things. thank you. >> i told senator sessions i wish to interrupt his time of speaking, and we're now within

the minute of the time. just so everybody understands, or came in late. the senate agreed by consent this afternoon when it came in that at this time we would observe a minute of silence in memory of the people, the police officer, and others who were killed and those who lost life and limb at the boone -- bays ton mar -- boston marathon. please stand for a moment of silence.

[inaudible] in the state bordering massachusetts as probably walked through the corner dozens of time. i have a feeling that the expressions here, elsewhere in our government, will mean a lot to the people there. senate sessions. >> thank you. of course, i know soon we will at some point recognize the volunteer firefighters and all of those in texas who responded to help their community. [inaudible] >> i know we will be dealing with that. well, i thought that the first

panel showed we had problems with ag and low-skill workers. and that portion of the bill, and i think the second panel would skilled workers indicated the problems there. i think your testimony in the case we have problems here that need to be dealt with. i just would ask dr. flemming, you know, i don't believe that script churl basis for the idea a modern nation state can have a lawful system of immigration and somehow prohibited from enforcing legitimate laws once they have been passed. i really feel strongly about that. i would just, as a matter of pursuing it a little bit note that when he came back to judah

asked the king to give letters to come to judah, then he was given that. he said i came to the governors of the province beyond the river and gave them the kick's letters. and moses, he's a cadet and he said, we're in city on your territory. he said the king -- please let us pass through the land. we will go along the highway. we won't turn from the right or the left inside we passed through your territory. you shall not pass through. he asked again and he said you shall not pass through. does he refuse to give the pass age through the territory so israel turned away and county go

through the territory. i think the idea that somehow the statements in leviticus i ix is not the thing that indicate that nations sit down with laws. i think that not healthy to lead ones astray. some people have been signing scriptture, i think pretty loosely, it appears to me, in genesis abraham and isaac to -- and obtain water rights from local kings and they requested permission for the family in egypt and i would note that when the phase is used at least -- says that it means lawfully to be in that area. i give you a chance to respond.

>> thank you, senator sessions. i appreciate you doing my job for today. my members would like you to share us with sometime as well. i couldn't disagree at all with what you said. i completely agree. that's why we've been asking for legislation that respects the rule of law, secures our national borders whole heartingly agree with that. the doctor is a personal friend of mine. i appreciate you quoting him today. however, that being said, surely if our system currently, as it structured, were true to the scriptture you quoted with we wouldn't have 11 million plus illegal immigrants. we don't have the system you described. >> well, i would just acknowledge that i have said sense 2007 we need to feel compassionate about for people who have been here a long time. they should not attempt to be deported. we need to wrestle through all of this and try to do it in a

way that is appropriate. you know, i believe senator rubio, issued a fact check today that said that my statement about 30 million people being legalized is not accurate. i would ask all of those that sport the bill, what is the number is legalized under the system? the amnesty i.t. provide legalization for 11 million, the backlog is a 4.5 accelerated backlog elimination add 4.5 according to the "los angeles times," a future flow could be 50% above future flow. that would be another 50 million. over ten that's around 30. it doesn't include other family migration.

the -- you want to comment on that? >> well, i haven't done the numbers. it makes sense. >> has anybody promoted numbers they say it would -- . >> no. that's one of the issues i think people have to give actual number hads had. one thing that you left out that would increase numbers. the legislation would make unlimited the immediate relative of green cardholders as the immediate relatives of u.s. citizens it would increase numbers as well. >> millions? >> over time, certainly, absolutely. >> mr. kobach, thank you for the work in the area over time. i would note your comment about the hardship definition and some of the other definitions, all of us need to listen to that. because if you get to the point where you don't have clarity in the cases in every case has going to object tried now over whether or not there's going to be a hardship allegation, i do

think -- do you not -- [inaudible] or know how the systems works it would be terribly destablizing the whole legal system and the bill can proceed. my time is up. >> say this that when you have a modifier like extreme in most court of laws that tells the judge exercise the discretionary carefully here as opposed to the word "hardship" which is an open of ended term. it invites a lot of leeway. i think it would be problematic in the court system. >> i'm going yield to senator -- take the gavel for a bit. i would note as much as i enjoyed being chairman of the judiciary, i just wanted to amend, i'm not trying to amend

genesis or any other part of the bible. [inaudible conversations] >> i don't suggest i do. i appreciate the -- [inaudible] i appreciate the bible less sob, but we'll stick to the . >> my father is a priest i know you understand. [inaudible] he does it better than i do. senator durbin. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mrs. pacheco, thank you for all of you have done on behalf of the dreamers. my staff asked me to read the story of the dreamers, i have done it 55 times on the united states senate. each one is amazing in its own right. the accomplishments of the young people, the fact they have known no other country in their lives and want to be part of america's future. they have extraordinarily educational achievements they

manage to put together in american schools. schools that were open by american taxpayers. their education has been supported by our country, and now with all the skill and talent asking us to give them a chance. mr. kobach, do you think the dreamers deserve a chance to become legal in america? >> you know, that, of course, involves a lot of calculations. we're talking about, for example, in the dream act part of the bill, we're talking about resources, places, for example the dream act portion of the bill, like many of the dream acts we have seen before congress if 2001 said that the current provision against giving instate tuition rates to illegal aliens has been to be removed >> i want to ask a matter of principle. let go basic values here.

these young people were brought to america, gabby, at the age of 8. it wasn't exactly her decision to come from ecuador. he was her family's decision. time and again we're finding cases where children were brought in and the parents didn't file the right papers or overstayed a visa, and the child knew nothing about it. so getting behind immigration policy and the specifics, which question talk about for a long time, is a basic matter of justice and fairness, do you believe that the young people should be penalized for the wrong doing of their parents. >> well, that's exactly where i was going to go the biblical verse. we're not supposed to punish the children for the sins of the parent. similarly we probably shouldn't reward the children for the sin of the parents. treat the children neutrally. i think that's the most just thing. >> how would you treat them neutrally. >> i treating the equivalent of other people who hold the name

nationality. don't allow them to jump ahead. which is what it is. jump ahead of the line by retaining their presence in the united. allow them to have the same opportunity maybe getting rid of the ten-year bar. that might be a reasonable proposal. get in line with the rest of their country. >> we -- it's interesting because eight senators, four democrats, four republicans some pretty conservative republicans, i might add, basically came to the opposite conclusion. they said what you were suggesting is punishment. what you are suggesting they should be punished and put to the back of the line they have never done anything wrong. i been tat for twelve years. i met hundreds maybe thousand of these young people. to suggest somehow they are guilty, cupble should pay a price for what they did wrong just defies basic compassion, which i feel is part of this calculation as well as justice. and i would say to you that this notion that we heard in the last

campaign self-deport, i think it might have been one of your points of view at that time, i mean, overlooking the obvious. america will be a stronger nation when we acknowledge who we are. my mother was an immigrant to the country. brought here at the aijt of two. she was a dreamer of her generation. her son is now a united states senator. that's my story. it's my family's story. that has beens to be -- happens to be america's story. she was given a change to naturalize at the age of 23, and she did. i have her certificate sitting on the back of my desk. i'm proud of it. i think america is a little better because she came over on a boat and managed to live here and make a life. you know what? my story is not unique. what happened to her, what was given to her, the opportunity made the country it is today. i think many people who resist and fight back against ill gracious are ignoring who we

are. our birthright as a nation. we went through three months of debate over this, at least. twept four separate meetings. trying to figure out what was a just and fair way to resolve this. but this notion that immigrants are somehow negative or bad for america, that isn't fact at all. never has been. and i think what we come up with is a fair approach. can it be improved? sure i'm open to improvement. when it comes down gabby pacheco and hundreds and thousand just like her, mr. kobach, she's never known any other country. this is her home. >> my i briefly respond. >> of course. >> i don't think it's fair to characterize those of us who should restore the rule of law as resisting immigration. we are resisting illegal immigration we have the -- not being promoted in deciding who may enter the country, who may stay in the country, and rules

for coming in. self-deportation is not a radical idea. it's a idea people may comply with the by the own choice. whenever we have a law enforcement problem, self-deterrence is basically the typically solution law enforcement don'ts. you increase the penalty so people comply with the law. self-deportation something arizona has proven. if you ratchet up the penalty for violating the law, people choose to law. it's been proven they do that. >> you were elected official in kansas? >> correct. >> so am i. i'm ab elected if initial illinois. when we said the voters have the last word, ultimately. they had the last word on self-deportation on november 6. we are behind that now. what we're talking about now is america is a better country if we have an immigration system that brings 11 million people out of the shadows to register with the state government we know who they are, where they are, do a criminal background

check or whether we leave them in the shadows. i think it's clear. we are a better nation when we have these 11 million people coming forward. and for the dreamers, they are being treated differently, given perhaps a better chance forward legalization. it's not an easy path. most of them spend their lives in hiding for fear of being deported. they achieved amazing things despite that. we come down with a different point of view. i'm going stop now because i think i have a gavel. are there other members who would like to make a comment or statement? senator cornyn, please. >> mr. chairman, as long as you have the gavel, you go as long as you want. i'm going ask mr. kobach, to answer this question. is there anything short of removal that you could consider not to be amnesty? >> no. amnesty means an illegal immigrant gets to stay.

it's the definition we have always used as far as immigration goes, and is actually an academic literature of comparative immigration amnesty. >> it's a legal . >> no. >> i understand what it means. how about you, mr. kobach? anything short of removal is amnesty to you? >> i would argue that declining to remove unlawfully present alien is actually amnesty plus. because you're giving -- if you will, if you liken it to theft. you are giving the person what he taken, namely presence in the united states taken it lawfully. you're declining to punish. you're allowing the person to -- you could define amnesty as not prosecuting. but this is more than just not prosecuting. it's not prosecuting and allow the person to keep what he has unlawfully taken. >> some said the status quo that represents de facto amnesty. would you agree with that? >> the status quo to the degree

that this administration and, frankly, others have deliberately chosen not to enforce the law. that is a kind of de facto amnesty, yes. the only way to resolve it is not necessarily through statute but executive action. >> mr. kobach? >> i would argue that the -- we have more than just a de facto amnesty, people use the term de facto to describe the situation of facts on the ground. we have more than a de facto amnesty. the dock elt is an executive directive, an order, if you will, that declare that's current provisions of u.s. law, specifically u.s. c1225 will not ebb forced and the officers ordered by u.s. law shall diso'bay the law. we have got more than a de facto am nest fip we van executive branch that is ignoring the

congress has written. >> i would like to have mrs. rich respond to this. there a number of people including me that believe that the representation the border will be secure and we'll have an effective system has been adequately. those are those who say tb adequately addressed in the bill. you know specially, police mrs. lichter that executive branch should create a branch of effectively monitor visa overstays yet today. all the years later 40% of illegal immigration doesn't come across on the border. people come in legally and overstay. i want to ask you you can you understand those who have seen this movie before who said the

promises and assurance it's the last time that ever will have to happen. we're going institute enforcing law against people who come in legally but overstay the visa. it's never come to pass. can you appreciate the skepticism that people feel when they hear that again? mrs. lichter, go ahead. >> senator, thank you. look at it my way, first. then you can look tat a better way. [laughter] can you understand the skepticism? judge -- court only to find they didn't work as advertised? >> right. in order to avoid that sense of disenchant wment the new method going forward, i would like to draw your attention to what the real cause is of the overstay or the illegal entry.

it is not for lack of enforcement. it is not for lack of attracting system. it's for lack of a lawful path where people who wish to change from their nonimmigrant stay us extend. -- >> when you come in on a thirty day visa, you don't know who the visa expire and it's time to go home. you're saying it's for lack of path to scoich. i didn't say lack of path to citizenship. >> it was lack of legal immigration options. >> i have have legal immigration -- we natural lose as million as people in a year. we have a path for people to function through the legal system. you're telling me some people have no option to overstay the visa and melt to the great american landscape. >> we had three hours of testimony as to why it doesn't work. i believe the architecture the gang of eight has come up with would do much to provide an

intelligent common sense system if our focus shifts to making the pathway achievable for low skilled workers, high skilled workers, and family having due process in the law. i think the rest will fall in place. i believe that. i believe i'm the only person on the panel that actually practices in this. i have been doing for nearly two decades. i believe that because i see it every single day. out of fairness to you, i ask a question. would you care to respond? >> i would, i appreciate it. i understand the perspective, i think you someone representing viewpoints like mine and gabbies i think we know there's different view how to get to maybe perhaps the same end goal. making sure our borders are secure as well as making sure we have a process that is regular, orderly, and fair to bring in new immigrants. i get that. i